CONSISTENT BUILDERS PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 05, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6037/2023HC DelhiDLHC01017343202329 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.03.2023, passed for assessment year 2010-11, was clearly beyond the limitation period. The satisfaction note was recorded on 25.06.2021, which falls in assessment year 2022-23. Calculating backward from AY 2022-23, and considering that the escaped income was more than Rs.50,00,000/-, the limitation period would be 10 years, making the 10th year AY 2013-14. Therefore, the order passed in AY 2010-11 was time-barred. The Court found the issue to be squarely covered by its own judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 30.03.2023 was quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Consistent Builders Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2010-11. This order was passed in furtherance of a satisfaction note dated 25.06.2021 recorded by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act. The revenue acknowledged that an SLP was filed against a relevant High Court judgment but could not dispute the facts involved in the present case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 30.03.2023, passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2010-11, is barred by limitation. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 153A and 153C of the Act). Assessee's contention: The impugned order was passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time. The issue is covered by the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Revenue's contention: An SLP against the judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 6037/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010173432023 + W.P.(C) 6037/2023, CM APPL. 23648/2023

CONSISTENT BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri and Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advs.

versus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 05, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr. Anant Mann, JSC and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSC for Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) in furtherance of the satisfaction note dated 25.06.2021 recorded by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2010-11. (ORAL)

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned order has been passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961 as prevailing at the Signed By:PRATI MA Signing Date:01.10. 2026 19:32 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 6037/2023 Page 2 of 3

relevant time (AY 2010-11). 3. He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). 4. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved. He, however, submitted that an SLP against the said judgment has been filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It does not need much discussion that as the satisfaction note was recorded on 25.06.2021, i.e. in the assessment year 2022-23, the order passed on 30.03.2023 qua assessment year 2010-11 is clearly beyond the limitation period (which shall be 10 years as the escaped income is more than Rs.50,00,000/-), if calculated backward from assessment year 2022-23. For ease of understanding, a tabular depiction is made hereunder: Year No. (counted backwards) Assessment Year 1 AY 2022-23 2 AY 2021-22 3 AY 2020-21 4 AY 2019-20 5 AY 2018-19 6 AY 2017-18 7 AY 2016-17 8 AY 2015-16 9 AY 2014-15 10th year AY 2013-14

7.

The impugned order is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Sections Signed By:PRATI MA Signing Date:01.10. 2026 19:32 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 6037/2023 Page 3 of 3

153A and 153C of the Act of 1961 so also in light of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 30.03.2023 is quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE

ADITI CHOUDHARY (JUDGE) September 29, 2026/bh Signed By:PRATI MA Signing Date:01.10. 2026 19:32 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →